Skip to main content

Full text of "Reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights : hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, on a hearing to consider the reauthorization of the Commission on Civil Rights, June 16, 1994"

See other formats

S. Hrg. 103-1076 


Y 4, J B9/2:S. HRG. 103-1076 


Reauthorization of the U.S. Conniss. . . 









JUNE 16, 1994 

Serial No. J-103-€l 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

^PR 2 8 W9S 


22-482 CC WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-052331-1 

S. Hrg. 103-1076 


\. J 89/2: S. HRG, 103-1076 


jthorization of the U.S. Conniss... 









JUNE 16, 1994 

Serial No. J-103-61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

APR 2 8 199S 


22-182 CC WASHINGTON : 1996 

For sale b) the U.S. Government Printing Office 
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 
ISBN 0-16-052331-1 


JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman 
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 









Cynthia C. Hogan, Chief Counsel 

Catherine M. Russell, Staff Director 

Mark R. Disler, Minority Staff Director 

Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel 

Subcommittee on the Constitution 

PAUL SIMON, Illinois, Chairman 


EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

Susan Kaplan, Chief Counsel 
David Miller, Minority Counsel 





Simon, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois 1 


Panel consisting of Mary Frances Berry, chairperson, U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights; and Carl A. Anderson, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights ^ 


Anderson, Carl A.: „. 

Testimony ^^ 

Prepared statement '•^ 

Berry, Mary Frances: 

Testimony ^ 

Prepared statement "••••.•;•"•.•■••—" 10 

Biographies of Members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights i^ 




THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 1994 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in room 
SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Paul Simon (chair- 
man of the subcommittee), presiding. 

Present: Senator Brown. 


Senator Simon. The subcommittee hearing will come to order. 
We are considering the reauthorization of the Commission on Civil 
Rights, a commission that has had its ups and downs. It was for 
many years a real leader in the field of civil rights, and then it had 
some down years, and my feeling is that the immediate past chair 
lifted it up again, and that the new chairperson. Dr. Mary Berry, 
whom I have known 20 years or so, is going to provide the kind 
of leadership that we need. 

We are also pleased to have Commissioner Carl Anderson here 
today, and I think without any further ado, I will call on you. 
Madam chair, before Commissioner Anderson, if that sounds all 

Ms. Berry. Fine. 

Senator Simon. All right. 



Ms. Berry. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting us 
to testify in support of the reauthorization of the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights. I have a prepared statement. 

Senator SiMON. We will enter your prepared statement in the 
record and I think these kind of meetings are best when we are 

Ms. Berry. Right. 

Senator Simon. And do not go through prepared statements. 


Ms. Berry. I have no intention of reading my statement. I just 
wanted to say, first of all, that while I'm sitting here representing 
the whole Commission, you know, of course, that the Commission 
is independent of the administration, and that my views probably 
never reflect the views of any particular administration. They may 
be by accident. Secondly, that the 

Senator SiMON. You do not expect me to disagree with you on 
that, do you? 

Ms. Berry. No. 

Senator SiMON. All right. 

Ms. Berry. The Commission is a diverse group of people. We 
have got eight people on the Commission, and Commissioner An- 
derson is here today and is one of them, but we have a number of 
other distinguished members including a former Supreme Court 
Justice from California, Commissioner Reynoso, Arthur Fletcher, 
who is the immediate past chairman, who is a distinguished person 
in his own right, and all together we have got four people who were 
appointed by President Bush. We have one appointee of Senator 
Dole over on the Senate side, and Commissioner Anderson, ap- 
pointed by the minority leader on the House side, and myself, ap- 
pointed by the majority on the House side, and then designated 
chair by President Clinton. 

I only mention that, Mr. Chairman, because I appreciate my col- 
league, Mr. Anderson, being present this morning, but some of the 
other Commissioners indicated to me that they would have appre- 
ciated an invitation to testify too, and I told them that all of them 
could not come to testify. 

Senator SiMON. Unfortunately. 

Ms. Berry. And that you might hear from them on another occa- 
sion. All right. What I wanted to say to you is that the Commission 
on Civil Rights is asking for a 6 year reauthorization. Why are we 
asking for that? It is because we continue to play a role and have 
in the past even under some difficult circumstances and hope to 
play a more significant role in helping the country to create equal- 
ity of opportunity for all people in this country without regard to 
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability. In 
other words, we have not overcome the obstacles to the kind of 
equality and justice that we would like to see under our constitu- 
tional Government. 

To that end, the Commission does, of course, studies and reports 
and hearings, and we have 51 State advisory committees. We mon- 
itor Federal enforcement, and we study issues and problems. We 
get also about 4,000 complaints a year from individuals that they 
send to us just as they complain to their Senators and Members 
of Congress about incidents, and we give those complaints to the 
agencies to follow up to see how they are disposed of. We could do 
a better job of that when we have more resources, but we do know 
that we get about 4,000 complaints a year from people about dis- 

We have a number of accomplishments in 1992 and 1993 which 
are listed in the testimony submitted for the record. All I will say 
to you is that there is evidence that the Commission's work has 
had impact. For example, some State advisory committee reports 
have led to legislative changes in some of the States, and that is 

detailed in the record. So that we know that the people out there 
who are serving as volunteers on the State advisory committees 
have been helpful. 

Since 1992, the major Commission emphasis has been on racial 
and ethnic tensions in America's communities. We call it poverty, 
inequality and discrimination, and we have been having hearings 
around the country, had one in Chicago, started out here in Mount 
Pleasant here in the District of Columbia after the riots that took 
place up there. We have had a hearing in Los Angeles and we will 
nave a hearing in September in New York, and then after that one 
in Miami, and in the Mississippi delta. 

What we are trying to do is figure out why these growing ten- 
sions, which there is evidence of the tensions in reports from the 
Justice Department, from the hate crime statistics, from the com- 
munity relations service reports, and an abundance of evidence, 
media accounts and the like of growing tensions in our country, of 
polls, and the question is what is causing all of this. And we are 
not just interested only in shocking episodes that we might read in 
the paper that something happened or see it on TV, but the day- 
to-day actions that affect people. 

And we have a notion that discrimination, invidious discrimina- 
tion, is related to the poverty and the inequality that we see in 
many of our urban and rural areas around the country. So we are 
starting with the cities. The other thing that we are doing is mon- 
itoring the Federal Government. I have for years wanted the Com- 
mission to place a greater emphasis on monitoring. We have a cou- 
ple of reports this year that will be coming out, one on the Fair 
Housing Amendments. In 1988, President Reagan said he wanted 
a fair housing law that had teeth. Well, one was finally passed, and 
it is supposed to have teeth, and we have been looking to see how 
it is being enforced and are we really doing something to get rid 
of America's apartheid and to provide opportunity for the disabled 
and for people of color, and for people who have children who are 
looking, seeking a fair housing opportunity? 

And on Title VI of the Civil Rights act, the Civil Rights Commis- 
sion has not done a report on title VI in years. So we have one now. 
So we can look to see what those who receive Federal financial as- 
sistance, what they are doing in the way of avoiding race discrimi- 
nation and discrimination on the basis of national origin. In the fu- 
ture, enforcement, monitoring enforcement will be a big emphasis. 
Some people ask me why? 

I will tell you why. The reason is that I think that people who 
work hard everyday and who take care of their families and who 
do everjrthing that you would require productive individuals to do 
ought not to see their opportunity to work or to buy a house or to 
get the kind of educational opportunity that they want affected by 
discrimination on the basis of race or disability or sex or national 
origin, and that is happening all over of this country. It has been 
documented, and I think that if we want to reduce alienation and 
make people seek opportunity, that that is a major task before us, 
and we will be putting our emphasis there. 

I will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have, 
Mr. Chairman, and thsink you. 

Senator Simon. And I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mary Francis Berry and related ma- 
terials follow:] 







June 16, 1994 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased 1o testify 
today in support of the reauthorization of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

As the Chairperson of the Commission, I sit before you representing the 
Commission as a whole. Because of the Commission's independent status, I 
should note that my remarks do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
Administration. My colleagues on the Commission have a diverse range of 
backgrounds, views and talents. The other individuals who comprise the eight- 
member policymaking body of the Commission are: Vice Cfiairperson Cruz 
Reynoso, Professor of Law at the UCLA Law School, Carl A. Anderson, Vice 
President for Public Policy with the Knights of Columbus and Dean, North 
American Campus of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage 
and Family; Arthur A. Fletcher, Distinguished Professor of BLisiness Administration 
and Director of the International Institute for Corporate Social Policy at the 
University of Denver; Robert P. George, Associate Professor of Politics at 
Princeton University; Constance Horner, Guest Scholar in Governmental Studies, 
Brookings Institution; Russell G. Redenbaugh, Partner and Director of Cooke & 
Bieler, Inc., and Chairman and CEO of Action Technologies, Inc.; and Charles 
Pei Wang, Secretary, United Way of New York City. 

Each member of the Commission has his or her own viewpoint on the civil 
rights issues that we address; however, we share the commof^ goal of fulfilling 
the Commission's legislative mandate to the best of our ability. The 
Commission has voted to recommend that the existing authorization statute for 
the Commission oe extended for a six-year term. 

The Commission on Civil Rights is vital to sustaining progress toward true 
equality of opportunity in our nation. As an independent, bipartisan agency, 
the Commission is mandated to conduct factfinding and to report on 
discrimination and denials of equal protection of the law on Ihe basis of race, 
color, religion, sex, national origin, age and disability; we monitor and evaluate 
the effectiveness of Federal civil rights enforcement efforts; and we support our 

51 State Advisory Committees. In carrying out this mandate, we conduct 
hearings, issue reports to the President and the Congress, and serve as a 
national clearinghouse for information on civil rights. The Commission is 
expected to make recommendations to all Federal agencies on ways to make 
their civil rights policies and procedures more effective. 

Let me review the accomplishments of the Commission over the period of this 
current authorization: 

• In February 1992, the Commission issued a report entitled Civil Rights Issues 
Facing Asian Americans in the 1990s . This report provided a comprehensive 
analysis of the civil rights issues facing Asian Americans and contained many 
recommendations for action to alleviate the problems described. It is one of 
the most comprehensive and constructive works of its kind and has been 
enthusiastically received. 

• During FY 1992, the Commission issued o Federal civil rights enforcement 
report entitled Prospects and Impact of Losing State and Local Agencies from 
the Federal Fair Housing System . This report examined the Fair Housing 
Assistance Program and the certification status of State and local agencies 
under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988. The report also assessed the 
role and status of those State and local human rights agencies that are 
seeking to be substantially equivalent under the 1988 Amendments, and 
evaluated the consequences for the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act if 
these agencies are not certified. To address one of the Commission's 
recommendations contained in this report, HUD added new staff to handle 
complaints received from State and local agencies that have not yet gained 
interim agreements with HUD. 

• In July 1992, the Commission released a summary report. Constructing 
Denver's New Airport: Are Minorities and Women Benefiting ? This report 
summarized information obtained at the Commission's June 1991 forum in 
Denver, Colorado on alleged discrimination in hiring and minority contracting 
in the construction of the city's new international airport. 

• Following the release of the summary report on the Denver Airport, the 
Commission conducted further monitoring of civil rights enforcement relating to 
federally assisted transportation projects. In January 1993, the Commission 
issued Enforcement of Equal Employment and Economic Opportunity Laws and 
Programs Relating to Federally Assisted Transportation Projects , which provided 
preliminary findings on the performance of the Departments of Transportation 
and Labor in enforcing various civil rights laws pertaining to hiring and 
contracting in this multibillion dollar construction project. In response. Secretary 
of Transportation Peha informed the Commission that an internal review had 


begun to find ways to improve the Department's enforcement of Title VI ot the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

• Also during FY 1993, the Commission issued The Validity of Testing in 
Education and Employment . This report was based on a consultation held by 
the Comrriission on the use of testing in education and employment and 
summarized the research and views of experts on appropriate methods of test 
development to avoid racial, ethnic, and gender bias. 

• In August 1993, the Commission issued a report entitled Epual Employment 
Opportunity for Federal Employees , which highlighted certain inequities and 
conflicts of interest inherent in the current procedure by which Federal 
agencies process employee complaints of discrimination. The Commission 
testified before the House Education and Labor Subcommittee on Select 
Education and Civil Rights in support of H.R. 2721, which incorporated several 
of the Commission's recommendations. 

• Commission statements were issued on topics such as the Civil Rights Act of 
1991 , the 50th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor, and Religious Discrimination and 

• The Commission held briefings on issues such as the glass ceiling, voter 
representation, statehood for the District of Columbia, and discrimination in 
professional and collegiate sports. 

• The Commission continues to receive about 4,000 complaints per year from 
individuals alleging violations of their civil rights. These complaints are reviewed 
and referred to Federal, State, or local agencies or private organizations for 

• State Advisory Committee (SAC) reports issued in FY 1992 covered d wide 
array of issues as illustrated by the following examples; race relations In Selma, 
Alabama; Hawaiian Homelands Program and the fdilure of the Federal and 
State goverrnments to protect the civil rights of native Hawaiians, voting rights 
in San Luis, Arizona; police-community relations in Tampa, Florida; hate crime in 
Indiana; racial and religious tensions on selected Kansas college campuses; 
campus tensions in Massachusetts; educational opportunities for American 
Indians in Minneapolis and St. Paul schools; shelter issues in New York; 
implementation of the Fair Housing Amendments of 1988 and eastern New 
York public housing; and school desegregation in Milwaukee Public Schools. 

Many of these SAC reports have resulted in improvements in the subject oreas 
cited. For example, one of the principal recommendations contained in the 
Alabama SAC report concerned the formation of a citizens advisory group on 

race relations, and this recommendation \r\as been adopted by the city. 
Several recommendations contained in the SAC report on Hawaiian 
Homelands have been adopted or are in progress. 

• During FY 1993, SAC reports covered issues such as access of the minority 
elderly to health care and nursing homes in New York; public education in 
Idaho, provisions on sex discrimination in employment in South Dakota; the 
need for a human relations commission in Alabama; policing in Chicago, 
Illinois; police-community relations in southern West Virginia; race relations in 
Dubuque, Iowa; stereotyping of minorities by the news media in Minnesota; 
environmental justice in Louisiana; and Native American students in North 
Dakota special education programs. Other SAC projects included the on- 
going joint study of border violence by the Arizona, California, New Mexico, 
and Texas Committees; retention of minorities and women in public institutions 
of higher education in Colorado; implementation of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act in Delaware; lending practices in the District of Columbia; race 
relations in western Kansas; racial tensions in Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; and Asian American civil rights issues 
in Maryland. To illustrate the impact of these SAC reports, the current session 
of the Alabama legislature is considering the formation of a human relations 
commission as recommended in the FY 1993 Alabama SAC report. 

• In 1991 , the Commission undertook a multi-year project to address the 
deteriorating condition of race and ethnic relations in America. Such highly 
publicized events as the riots in Los Angeles, and the disturbances in Crown 
Heights (New York City) and Mount Pleasant (Washington D.C.) do not begin 
to reflect the extent and intensity of the racial and ethnic tensions nationwide. 
While the media and many political and community leaders tend to dwell on 
the spectacular incidents of interracial tensions, everyday tensions between 
neighbors and coworkers indicate a far more pervasive and destructive social 
condition. Underlying the headline stories are incidents of discrimination and 
denial of opportunit/ which pen/ades the everyday lives of this nation's racial 
and ethnic minorities. 

The Commission's project, entitled Racial and Ethnic Tens ions in American 
Communities: Poverty, Inequality and Discrimination , is being conducted as a 
series of factfinding hearings in several cities. Through these hearings, the 
Commission hopes to identify the underlying causes of the growing alienation 
of racial and ethnic groups and to recommend ways of attacking these 
problems. To date we have held hearings in Chicago, Los Angeles, and two in 
Washington, D.C. Future hearings are planned for New York, Miami and the 
Mississippi Delta region. 


The Commission's first heoring was held on Jonuofv 29-31 . 1992 in response to 
the disturbonces that rocked the Mount Pleasant area in our Nation s Capitol 
in May 1991. The Commission focused its investigation on the concerns of the 
Latino community and such central issues as immigration, police-community 
relations, employment opportunities, and the delivery of services by the District 
of Columbia government, A report on this hearing was released in January 
1993. Former Commission Chairperson Arthur Fletcher testified before the City 
Council of the District of Columbia on the findings and recommendations 
contained in this report, thereby participating in the initial implementation of 
some of our recommendations. The report continues to be cited by area civil 
rights groups monitoring the District government's responsiveness to these 

To explore racial and ethnic tensions from a national perspective, the 
Commission held a second hearing in Washington, D.C. on May 21-22, 1992. 
Expert witnesses testified on various aspects of the crisis facing America's 
communities. The third major hearing conducted by the Commission in 
FY 1992 was held in Chicago, Illinois, on June 24-26, 1992. Approximately 60 
witnesses provided sworn testimony on topics such as minority access to 
housing and mortgage credit, access to credit and business development 
opportunities, police-community relations, access to education, access to 
health care, and employment and training. The Commission held its fourth 
hearing in June 1993 in Los Angeles. This hearing focused on both police- 
community relations and economic development in the City of Los Angeles 
and their impact on rising racial and ethnic tensions. The hearing also dealt 
with the portrayal of minorities in entertainment television and the news media. 

Major Commission activities scheduled for completion during FY 1994 include 
the following: 

• Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: The Enforcement Report will evaluate 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development's new system of 
adjudicating complaints before administrative law judges, the prosecution of 
complaints by the Justice Department and the administration by HUD of 
programs assisting State, local and nonprofit groups engaged in fair housing 
enforcement, outreach, education and the overall resources allocated for fair 
housing enforcement. 

• A study of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will examine the civil rights 
enforcement efforts and activities of Federal agencies with responsibilities for 
ensuring nondiscrimination in their federally assisted programs under Title VI. 
Title VI prohibits recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating on 
the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity. The study 
will review enforcement efforts in recent years and assess the adeguacy of the 


Title VI enforcement activities by Federal agencies. This assessment will include 
their performance in conducting onsite compliance reviews and individual 
complaint investigations as well as on analysis of their compliance standards. 

• The Commission will continue on the Racial and Ethnic Tensions theme with 
a major hearing planned for September 19-21, 1994 in New York City. 

• The Commission has held briefings on religious bigotry, economic 
empowerment, health care reform, the implementation of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, Census data on race and ethnicity, and the civil rights 
consequences of growing anti-immigrant sentiments. Future briefing topics will 
include, among others, the portrayal of persons of color in the media. In 
response to the health care briefing, one congressional committee indicated 
that it was useful in drafting health care reform legislation. 

• State Advisory Committee (SACs) reports have been accepted by the 
Commission on: hate crimes in Indiana; white supremacist activity in Montana; 
and police-community relations in New Jersey. 

• In FY 1995, and continuing in the future, the Commission expects to place 
greater emphasis on program activities in the area of civil rights enforcement. 
It is our view that Federal civil rights enforcement is weak, and does not 
adequately protect people's rights or deter discrimination. Accordingly, we 
have made it one of our top priorities to work towards ensuring that Federal 
agencies carry out their responsibilities to the fullest extent; that they have the 
requisite leadership and support, particularly financial support, and that they 
establish and execute tough enforcement standards. Toward this end, during 
FY 1995, the Commission plans to undertake major evaluations of Federal civil 
rights enforcement efforts in the areas of employment and education. 

In a project entitled Evaluation of Fair Employment Law Enforcement , 
the Commission will evaluate the Federal effort to eliminate employment 
discrimination by examining the policies and enforcement mechanisms 
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department 
of Justice. This study will concentrate on the implementation of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment 
Act, and the Equal Pay Act. We will assess the agency resources for 
enforcing these and other fair employment laws; the effectiveness of 
implementing policies, regulations and procedures; the adequacy of 
enforcement measures; and the conformity of charge processing by 
State and local fair employment agencies with EEOC standards. 


A second major enforcement study planned for FY 1995, entitled 
Evoluotion of Eoual Educational Opportunity Low Enforcement , will 
evaluate the efforts of thie Department of Education (Office of Civil 
Rights) to enforce a variety of laws mandating equal educational 
opportunity. We will focus on civil rights issues relating to the education 
offered language-minority children, programs provided to children with 
disabilities, equal educational opportunity for girls, and the ability 
tracking of minority children. 

• The Commission will conduct two final hearings on the Racial and Ethnic 
Tensions theme in Miami and the lower Mississippi Delta region. 

We plan to issue statutory reports containing findings and recommendations 
stemming from the other Racial and Ethnic Tensions hearings as follows: 

" Washington D.C. Hearing Report . The report on the national 
perspectives hearing held in May 1992 in Washington, D.C. will 
summarize the testimony of experts on such topics as hate incidents, 
changing demographics, multiculturalism, socioeconomic factors, 
financial and banking industry practices, and the Community 
Reinvestment Act. 

- Chicago Hearing Report . The report based on the Commission's June 
1992 hearing in Chicago will analyze police policies, civilian review and 
the processing of police misconduct complaints. The economic section 
of this report will focus on policy issues related to minority occess to 
credit and business development. 

-- Los Angeles Hearing Report . The report on the Commission's June 1993 
hearing in Los Angeles v^ill examine the progress of reforms in the Los 
Angeles Police Department, and it will explore governmental policies 
and programs and their impact on economic opportunities in minority 
communities. A third focus of the Los Angeles report will relate to local 
news media coverage of minorities and the portrayal of people of color 
and people of religious faith in primetime television entertainment 

- New York Hearing Report . The New York hearing report will examine 
issues relating to immigration and economic opportunity. 

- Miami Hearing Report . The Miami report is expected to cover 
immigration related civil rights issues, among other topics. 


-- Mississippi Delto Hearing Report This report is expected to cover issues 
sucti as thie impact of State financirig on public education, and the 
remaining vestiges of segregation in higher education. Other issues may 
include voting rights, health care and housing. 

- Summary Report . Finally, the Commission plans to complete a 
summary report examining the common causes, as well as major 
differences, in the way racial and ethnic tensions were experienced and 
dealt with in the different communities examined. 

• The Commission will continue to refer complaints of civil rights violations to 
appropriate government agencies for investigation. In FY 1995, we plan to 
track such complaints more closely in order to better serve those who seek our 
assistance and as a means of directly monitoring civil rights enforcement 
efforts by government agencies. 

With this Subcommittee's endorsement of our reduthorization and with the 
appropriations committees' recognition of our financial needs, the Commission 
on Civil Rights will be equipped to contribute more effectively than ever to the 
serious needs in the civil rights area. In essence, we will be better able to fulfill 
our congressional mandate. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepdred statement. I will be 
pleased to answer questions you might have concerning the work of the 
Commission and its reauthorization. 


UNITED STATES 624 Ninth Street. N W 

COMMISSION ON Washington. DC 20425 

aviL rkjKTS 


Mary Frances Berry became Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on November 
1 9, 1 993. An Independent, she was reappointed to the Commission in February 1 993 by the 
Speaker of the House to serve a six-year term. 

Dr. Berry is the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and Professor of 
History at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She was a Vice Chair 
of the Civil Rights Commission in 1980-82, and has been a Commissioner since that time. 

Dr. Berry was the 1990-91 president of the Organization of American Historians. She served 
as the Assistant Secretary for Education in the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare (HEW) from April 1977 until January 1980. For a period she also served as Acting 
U.S. Commissioner on Education. 

As Assistant Secretary for Education, Dr. Berry headed the Education Division of HEW and 
administered an annual budget of nearly $13 billion. In this role, she coordinated and gave 
general supervision to the National Institute of Education, the Office of Education, the Fund 
for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education, the Institute of Museum Services, and the 
National Center for Education Statistics. 

Prior to her service at HEW, Dr. Berry was Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Boulder 
where she was also professor of History and Law. She was Provost of the Division of 
Beha> orial and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland, College Park, prior to her 
selection as Chancellor of the University of Colorado at BoukJer. 

Dr. Berry was born in Nashville, Tennessee on February 1 7, 1 938. She earned bachelor's and 
master's degrees at Howard University, a doctorate in history from the University of Michigan, 
and the juris doctor degree from the University of Michigan Law School. She has held faculty 
appointments at Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, the University of 
Maryland, College Park, th« University of Michigan, and Howard University in Washington, 

Dr. Berry is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia. She has received 1 9 honorary 
doctoral degrees ar>d numerous awards for her public service end scholarly activities, including 
the NAACP's Roy Wilkins Award, the Rosa Parks Award of the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference, and the Ebony Magazine Black Achievement Award. Ms. Magazine honored her 
as one of its 1 986 Women of the Year. 

Dr. Berry is the author of a number of articles and essays as well as six books including J,2ng 
Memory: The Black Experience in America (with co-author John W. Blassingame), Why 6RA 
Failed: Politics. Women's Rights, and the Amending Proc ess of the Constitution, and Ih 
Politics of Parenthood: Child Care. Women's Rights and the Mvth of the Good Mother 



UNITED STATES 624 N.rtn Street N W 

COMMISSION ON Washington OC 20425 



Cruz Reynoso became Vice Chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on November 
19, 1993. A Democrat, he was appointed to the Commission in April 1993 by the Senate 
Majority Leader to serve a six-year term. 

Justice Reynoso is a Professor of Law at the University of California at Los Angeles School 
of Law. In addition, he is Special Counsel to the law firm of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays and 
Handler in Los Angeles. 

From 1 982 to 1 987, Reynoso was an Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court, San 
Francisco; and was an Associate Justice on the Third District Court of Appeal, Sacramento, 
from 1 976 to 1 982. He was also Of Counsel to the law firm of O'Donnell and Gordon in Los 
Angeles and Sacramento, 1987-88; a Professor of Law at the University of New Mexico, 
Albuquerque, 1 972-76; Director of the California Rural Legal Assistance, San Francisco, 1 969- 
72; and Associate General Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1967-68. 
In addition. Justice Reynoso was the Assistant Chief, Division of Fair Employment Practices, 
Department of Industrial Relations, San Francisco, 1 965-66; an attorney who later formed the 
law firm of Reynoso and Ouddy, El Centro, 1 959-68; and a legislative assistant to a state 
senator, 1959-60. 

Justice Reynoso has been a board member of the Mexican American Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund (MALDEF), and has served on the boards of directors for the Rosenberg 
Foundation, The Community Board Program, and Council on Foundations. He is a member 
of the California Judges' Association, the American Bar Association, the Los Angeles Bar 
Association, the La Raza Lawyers Association, and the Mexican American and National 
Hispanic Bar Associatiorte, and now serves on the boards of Latino Issues Forum, the Natural 
Resources Defense Council and Children Now. 

Justice Reynoso has held numerous public service positions on various presidential, 
congressional and gubernatorial committees. He is the recipient of the Loren Miller Legal 
Services Award from the California State Bar, and Honorary Doctor of Law or Humanities 
degrees from the University of Santa Clara, Lincoln University, OePaul University, Pomona 
College and the University of San Diego. He served in the U.S. Army, 1953-55. 

Justice Reynoso received a bachelor of laws degree from the University of California School 
of Law (Boalt Hall) Berkeley in 1958; a bachelor of aas degree from Pomona College, 
Claremont, California in 1953; and an associate of arts degree from Fullerton Junior College, 
Fullerton, California in 1951. He received a Ford Four>dation Fellowship to study 
constitutional law at the National University of Mexico, Mexico City, 1958-59; and attended 
George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 1954-55. 

Justice Reynoso was born on May 2, 1931 in Brea, California. He currently resides near 
Sacramento with his wife Jeannene. They have four married children: Trine Heter, Ranene 
Royer, Len Reid-Reynoso and Rondy Reynoso. 



UNITED STATES 1121 Vtrmoni Av«nu«, NW 

COMMISSIOM ON WMnington. DC 20429 

avH. niOHTs 


Carl A. Anderson became a comoissioner of the U.S. Conunission on 
Civil Rights in February 1990. A Republican, he was appointed by 
the Speaker of the House to serve a six-year term. 

Mr. Anderson is vice president for public policy for the Knights 
of Columbus, and dean, vice president, and professor of family law 
at the North American campus of the Pontifical John Paul II 
Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C. 

Before joining the Knights of Columbus, Mr. Anderson was special 
assistant to the President for Public Liaison, 1985-87; and a staff 
member in the White House Office of Policy Development, 1983-85. 
Prior to that, Mr. Anderson was a counselor to the undersecretary 
of health and human services. Department of Health and Human 
Services, 1981-83; and legislative assistant to Senator Jesse Helms 
(M.C.), 1976-81. 

From 1981-82, Mr. Anderson was a commissioner of the Native 
Hawaiian Study Commission, a Congressionally-mandated commission 
to study the social, economic, and legal situation of Native 

A lawyer by profession, Mr. Anderson has authored several papers 
and manuscripts on the family and lav. He earned an undergraduate 
degree (B.A.) in 1972 from Seattle University, and his juris doctor 
de^re* (J.O.) from the University of Denver in 1975. 

Bom in Torrington, Connecticut on February 27, 1951, Mr. Anderson 
resides in Arlington, Virginia with his wife Dorian and their four 
children, Carl, Matthew, Teresa, and Katharine. 



UMTCO STATES 624 Ninth Str»«l, N W 

COMMISSION ON WMtiinmon. C 20425 



Arthur A. Fletcher became a Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights in November 1993. He served as Chairman from February 
26, 1990 to November 19, 1993. A Republican, his term expires in 
November 1995. 

Mr. Fletcher is the distinguished professor of business 
administration and director of the International Institute for 
Corporate Social Policy at the University of Denver. 

He served at the White House as deputy assistant to the President 
for urban affairs from 1976-77; as president of Arthur A. Fletcher 
and Associates, Inc., 1973-89; and as executive director of the 
United Negro College Fund, 1972-73. He was an assistant secretary 
of labor for employment standards at the U.S. Department of Labor 
from 1969-71, and an alternate delegate to the 26th session of the 
United Nations General Assembly in 1971. 

Mr. Fletcher was a special assistant to the governor of the State 
of Washington in 1968-69; a member of the city council in Pasco, 
Washington; and an employee relations consultant at the Hanford 
Atomic Energy facility, 1967-68. He was a public school teacher in 
Berkeley, California, 1961-65; a reports control manager at 
Aerojet -General Corporation in Sacramento, California, 1957-61; and 
an assistant director for the public information office of the 
Kansas State Highway Department in Topeka, 1955-57. 

While teaching in a rural elementary school in Kansas, 
Mr. Fletcher was a fund-raiser for the pending 1954 Brown vs . 
School Board of Topeka desegregation suit, which was successfully 
fought up to the United States Supreme Court . 

Bom in Phoenix, Arizona on December 22, 1924, Mr. Fletcher served 
in the United States Arroy from 1943-45, and received his B.A. 
degree from Washburn University of Topeka, Kansas in 1950. 
He has received honorary doctoral degrees from Allegheny College; 
the University of Denver; Kent State University; Malcolm X College; 
Shaw University; South Carolina State College; Washburn University 
of Topeka; and Wilberforce University. He has also received 
numerous awards for his public service and civil rights activities. 

Mr. Fletcher and his wife Bernyce maintain residences in 
Washington, D.C., Maryland and New Jersey. 



UNITED STATES 624 Ninth Str»«t. N W. 

COMMISSION ON Washington. C 20425 



Robert P. George became a Commissioner of the U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights in January 1993. An Independent, he was appointed by 
President Bush to serve a term expiring in December 1998. 

Mr. George is Associate Professor of Politics at Princeton 
University, where he teaches courses on civil rights and liberties 
and legal philosophy. In addition, he is Of Counsel to the law 
firm of Robinson t McElwee in Charleston, West Virginia. 

He is a nen±>er of the Editorial Board of the American Journal of 
Jurisprudence; on the board of Directors of the Philosophy 
Education Society, Inc.; and on the Academic Advisory Board of the 
Judiciary Leadership Development Council. 

He is a member of the Bar of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and is 
admitted to practice in federal district and circuit courts and 
before the Supreme Court of the United States. 

A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Svarthaore College, Mr. George holds 
a Master of Theological Studies and a Doctorate of Laws free 
Harvard University. At Harvard, he received a Frank Knox 
Scholarship for advanced study in philosophy of lav at Oxford 
University where he earned a Doctorate of Philosophy. 

Mr. George is the author of Making Men Moral; Civil L iberties and 

Public Moralitv and editor of Natural Law Theorv; ConteBPOCflrY 

Essays . His articles and review essays have appeared in the Review 
of Politics, ths Review of Metaphysics, Law and Philosophy, the 
American Journal of Jurisprudence, and the law reviews of tne 
University of Chicago, Tulane, Michigan, and Columbia. 

He was the Justice Tom C. Clark Fellow at the Supreme Court of the 
United States, 1989-90; and Visiting Fellow in Law at New College. 
Oxford University, and Fellow of the Howard Foundation of Brown 
University, 1988-89. 

Born in Morgantown, West Virginia on July 10, 1955, Mr. George 
resides in Princeton, New Jersey with his wife Cindy and their 
children David and Rachel. 



UNITED STATES 624 Ninth Str««l. N.W. 

COMUtSSION OM Wuhinoton, O.C 2042S 



Constance Horner became a Commissioner of Che U. S. Commission on 
Civil Rights in January 1993. A Republican, she was appointed by 
President Bush to serve a term expiring in December 1998. 

Mrs. Horner is a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in 
Washington, D.C. She has served as assistant to the President and 
director of Presidential Personnel, August 1991-January 1993; 
deputy secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services, 
May 1989-August 1991; and as director of the U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, formerly the Civil Service Commission, August 
1985-May 1989. 

Other positions Mrs. Homer has held include associate director for 
economics and government for the Office of Management and Budget; 
director of VISTA and acting associate director of ACTION; and 
deputy assistant director of ACTION for policy and planning. She 
has also served on the President's Commission on White House 
Fellowships and the President's Commission on Executive Exchange. 
In addition, Mrs. Horner has taught at secondary schools in the 
United States and at universities abroad. 

Constance Homer is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania 
and holds a master of arts degree in English literature from the 
University of Chicago. 

Bom in Summit, Kew Jersey on February 24, 1942, Mrs. Horner 
resides in Washington, D.C. with her husband Charles Homer. They 
have two sons, David and Jonathan. 




1121 Vcrmon Av«nu« N W 
Wtjnogion C 20*25 


Russell G. Redenbaugh became a commissioner of the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights in February 1990. An Independent, he was appointed 
by the Senate Majority Leader to serve a six-year term. 

Mr. Redenbaugh is the first disabled American to serve on the 
national Commission since its creation in 1957. He was blinded and 
lost most of his hands in an explosion at the age of 17. 

Mr. Redenbaugh is a partner and director of Cooke t Bieler, Inc., 
an investment management firm based in Philadelphia; and chairman 
and chief executive officer of Action Technologies Inc., a 
California-based company that makes operating systems and 
application software for distributed computing systems. He is also 
a co-founder and head of Kairos, Inc., a Philadelphia educational 
services firm. 

Mr. Redenbaugh is an accomplished author, executive, financial and 
economic strategist, and teacher. He has been a chartered 
financial analyst since 1972; a chartered investment counselor 
since 1969; a member of Financial Analyst of Philadelphia, and the 
Wharton Club of Philadelphia. 

Mr. Redenbaugh earned his undergraduate degree (B.S., magna cum 
laude) from the University of Utah in 1967, and an MBA, with 
honors, from th« Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in 

Bom in Salt LaJca City, Utah on July 14, 1945, Mr. Redenbaugh 
resides in Philadelphia with his wife, Patty, and their four 
children, Micah, David, Allie, and James. 



UNfTED STATES 62* Ninth StfMt N w 

COMMISSiON ON Wasfiington. D C 20425 



Charles Pei Wang became a Commissioner of Che U.S. Commissicn c~ 
Civil Rights in November 1993. He served as Vice Chairman from May 
24, 1990 CO November 19, 1993. A Democrac, his term expires on 
December 5, 1995. 

Mr. Wang is presidenc of Che China Institute in America, Inc., a 
non-profit, bicultural organization founded in 1926 to educate the 
public about Chinese culture and to help Chinese students m this 
country adjust to and understand American culture. 

From 1968 to 1989, Mr. Wang worked at the Chinese -American Planning 
Council (CPC) in New York City's Chinatown. He held various 
positions at CPC, including those of managing director and 
executive director, and helped make CPC one of the largest and most 
prominent social service agencies for both Chinese and 
Chinese -Americans . 

Mr. Wang's affiliation with several organizationa has brought the 
status of the Chinese -American to the forefront of New York City's 
perspective. Notable accomplishments largely due to his efforts 
include the first public hearing on New York-Asian American Affairs 
sponsored by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1974, the 
opening of a Social Security branch office in Chinatown in 1976, 
and a Chinatown Post Office in 1978. 

He has served on the President's Commission on Mental Health-Asian 
American Panel, the New York State Crime Prevention Task Force, and 
the New York State Governor's Task Force on Bias Related Violence. 
He was a member of the New York State Advisory Committee to the 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for several years in the 1970's. 
He was also chairman of the Pacific Asian Coalition-Mid Atlantic 
Region, co-chairman of the Asiam American Council of Greater New 
York, vice chairman of the New York City Health System Agency, and 
secretary of the Private Industry Council. 

Currently, Mr. Wauig serves as the chairman of the U.S. Bureau of 
the Census 1990 Asian and Pacific Islanders Advisory Committee, on 
the board of directors of United Way, New York City, as co-chairman 
of the New York City Human Services, treasurer of the Federation of 
Asian American Social Service Organization, and is a metnber of New 
York City Partnership. 

Mr. Wang was bom in 1940 in Szechwan, China. He moved to Taiwan 
where he studied Chinese lamguage and culture at Cheng Chi 
University, receiving a B.A. degree in 1964. He moved to che 
United States in 1965, and in 1967, received a M.A. degree in Asian 
History from St. John's University of New York. He also studied at 
Columbia University and the University of New York School of Publir 
Administration. Mr. Wang and his wife Rita reside in Parsippany. 
New Jersey. They have a daughter. Angle. 



UNfTED STATES 624 Ninth Street, N.W. 

COMMISSION ON Washington, D.C. 20425 



Mary K. Mathews was appointed Staff Director of the U.S. Commission 
on Civil Rights on May 25, 1994. An Independent, Mathews was 
appointed by President Clinton. 

A career civil servant and senior Commission staffer, Mathews has 
coordinated the agency's work with the Commissioners since April 
1.994. She also performed a similar function for a period in 
December 1993. 

Mathews has been the Commission's Assistant Staff Director for 
Congressional Affairs since April 1991. She joined the Commission 
in June 1988 as Deputy Staff Director. Through title changes of 
Deputy Staff Director for Management and Assi.stant Staff Director 
for Administration, Mathews was in charge of internal management 
with responsibilities for the budget, finance, personnel, 
procurement, administrative services and the National Clearinghouse 

From 1981 to 1988, Mathews served as Chief, Administrative Services 
Division, Director and Assistant Director, Administrative Division 
at the Farm Credit Administration. She was the Deputy Chief, 
Departmental Services and Special Programs Division, and Employee 
Development Specialist at the U.S. Department of Transportation 
(DOT) from 1978 to 1981. She was also the Coordinator of the first 
Federal Management Development Program for Mid-to-Senior Level 
Women which she implemented at DOT in 1979. 

In 1978, Mathews was a member of the five-person task force that 
created and implemented the Presidential Management Intern Program 
which has received bipartisan support and is widely recognized as 
one of the Federal government's most effective management 
development programs . 

Mathews began her Federal government career in 1971 at the General 
Services Administration (GSA) . She served as the agency's College 
Recruitment and Suituner Intern Program Coordinator and as Chief of 
Training and Special Employment Programs in the headquarters office 
from 1971 to 1975. She was also the Administrative Officer of 
GSA's Federal Supply Service for the National Capitol Region from 
1975 to 1977. 

Mathews was born on April 20, 1948 in Washington, D.C. where she 
attended public schools. She graduated from American University in 
Washington, D.C. where she received a B.S. degree in Business 
Administration in 1970 and an M.B.A. in 1975. 

Mathews is listed in Who's Who in American Women and Who's Who in 
Emerging Leaders in America. She is an officer of the national 
organization. Executive Women in Government, and has served on the 
executive committee of the Small Agency Council and as chair of the 
Micro Agency Group which represents the 40 smallest Federal 
agencies. She resides in Alexandria, Virginia. 



Senator SiMON. Commissioner Anderson. 


Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to 
testify before the committee today. Let me highhght just briefly 
from the statement I submitted. In the more than 3V2 years that 
I have served on the Commission, I have become convinced that the 
overwhelming domestic social issue facing America today is what 
has been called the decivilization of America's urban poor. 

The term "decivilization" is indeed a strong one, but to me it nev- 
ertheless serves to emphasize the magnitude of our present crisis. 
We need not explore in depth here because of time the cultural 
pathologies which define this crisis such as the unprecedented lev- 
els of violence, particularly by and against children, the 
transgenerational welfare dependency, the breakdown of education 
and health services in those communities, and the virtually 
nonexisting employment and business opportunities, and finally 
the disintegration of stable and functional family life. That millions 
of Americans suffer these circumstances is more than a growing 
threat to our Nation's future. It is a moral outrage. 

For more than 2 years at the Commission we have focused, as 
the chairperson has said, on this crisis as our overarching theme 
at the Commission under the topic of racial and ethnic tensions in 
American communities and we have held hearings in a variety of 

This project was proposed jointly by Commissioner Berry and 
myself and adopted by the Commission. I wish that time permitted 
me to discuss with you many of the insights we have learned on 
these occasions. Two images remain indelibly with me. The first is 
of an Afro-American law enforcement official who through her tears 
related the events leading up to her teenage son's suicide in Chi- 
cago, and the second image is that of young, confident Afro-Amer- 
ican businessmen who detailed their economic successes in South 
Central Los Angeles. 

The unmistakable lesson I have learned is that the key to meet- 
ing the present crisis is to restore a sense of hope to those who 
have become caught up in it. To do that, we must give persons rea- 
son to believe that they may in some measure shape their future 
and their destiny. While government programs at all levels must 
be made more responsive to the people they are intended to serve, 
we must move beyond the provision of government services to em- 
power people in these communities to control and shape their own 

During these hearings, we have heard witnesses tell us that the 
poor of every racial and ethnic group yearn for opportunities for 
home and business ownership. The majority of our Commission be- 
lieves that while civil rights enforcement must continue to be 
stressed, government created barriers such as taxes and bureau- 
cratic regulations must also be removed. There are two other issues 
which concern a number of the members of the Commission which 
I would like to briefly mention. The first is the rising number of 
acts of bigotry involving religious vandalism, the disruption of reli- 
gious services and the interference with religious activities. 


If we are once again to muster the moral courage to confront the 
devastating consequences of racism in our urban communities, then 
we must take every step necessary to safeguard the proper leader- 
ship role of our faith communities in this endeavor. I am particu- 
larly pleased that the Commission has recently urged the Depart- 
ment of Justice to enhance the enforcement and interpretation of 
existing Federal laws relating to religious intolerance. 

The second issue is the increasing interracial tension and par- 
ticularly the increasing evidence of anti-Semitism, and I am 
pleased to report that here again the Commission has recently spo- 
ken out forcefully to condemn expressions of anti-Semitism. I am 
confident that the Commission will continue to keep these as im- 
portant priorities. 

So in closing I would just like to reiterate the importance of the 
Commission's work as the Commissioners, chairperson has said, 
the Commission chairperson has said, in the monitoring of Federal 
civil rights enforcement as well as in the completion of our series 
of hearings on racial and ethnic tensions. Thank you very much. 

Senator Simon. We thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Carl A. Anderson follows:] 


statement of the Honorable Carl A. Anderson, Commissioner, 

United States Commission on Civil Rights 

Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

June 16, 1994 

Mr Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to 
testify today in regard to the reauthorization of the U.S Commission on Civil Rights 
The Chairperson has submitted testimony on behalf of the Commission and I would 
associate myself with those remarks. I offer these remarks on behalf of myself only, 
although I do so with a sense for the concems and interests of some of my other 
colleagues on the Commission. In doing so, however, I reiterate that I speak only for 

In the more than v3-1/2 years that I have served on the Commission I have become 
convinced that the overwhelming domestic social issue facing America today is what 
has been called the de-civilization of our nation's urban poor. The term "de- 
civilization" is indeed a strong one but it does nonetheless serve to emphasize the 
magnitude of the present crisis. We need not explore in depth here the cultural 
pathologies which define this crisis, such as unprecedented levels of violence, 
especially by and against children, transgenerational welfare dependency, the 
breakdown of education and health services in those communities, virtually non- 
existent employment and business opportunities, and the disintegration of stable and 


functional family life. That nnillions of Amencans suffer these circumstances is more 
than a growing threat to our future; it is a moral outrage. 

For more than two years we at the Commission have focused on this crisis as our 
overarching theme under the topic "Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American 
Communities: Poverty, Inequality and Discrimination" and have conducted hearings 
in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Los Angeles and will soon continue this series in New 
York and Miami This project was proposed jointly by Commissioner Berry and 
myself and adopted by the Commission. I wish that time permitted me to discuss 
with you many of the insights we learned on these occasions. Two images remain 
indelibly with me. The first is of an Afro-American law enforcement official who 
through her tears related the events leading up to her teenage son's suicide in 
Chicago and the second image is of young, confident Afro-American businessmen 
who detailed their economic successes in South Central Los Angeles. The 
unmistakable lesson I have learned is that the key to meeting the present crisis is to 
restore a sense of hope to those caught up in it. To do that we must give persons 
reason to believe they may in some measure shape their own future. 

While govemment programs at all levels must be made more responsive to the 
people they are intended to serve, we must move beyond the provision of 
govemment services to empower people in these communities to control and shape 
their own destinies. During our hearings we have heard many witnesses tell us that 


the poor of every racial and ethnic group yearn for opportunities for home and 
business ownership. The majority of the Commission believes that, while civil rights 
enforcement must be stressed, government-created barriers such as taxes and 
bureaucratic regulations must also be removed. One example of this is the counter- 
productive effect of high capital gains taxes that freeze the flow of investment to high- 
risk areas and the capital-starved poor and unemployed. In 1990 the Commission 
made the following recommendation which I believe still accurately reflects the views 
of a majority of the Commission: "The Commission recommends that the President 
and Congress focus on developing policies that will spur both general economic 
growth and, in particular, growth in the depressed urban and rural areas of our 
nation. For those who live, work and invest in the depressed areas of our inner 
cities, for example, we urge cutting the capital gains tax rate to zero, establishing 
enterprise zones, and other social and job-creating initiatives to help restore 
economic prosperity to these areas. Overwhelmingly, the residents of these areas 
suffer the legacy of past discrimination and the limitations of current civil rights laws 
and policies to promote equality of opportunities. Policies to stimulate growth in 
depressed areas would not only foster the economic opportunities of residents of 
these communities, but would benefit many other Americans by helping to realize the 
full potential of our nation's wealth." 

There are two other issues which concern a number of the members of the 
Commission which should be briefly mentioned. The first is the rising number of acts 


of bigotry involving religious vandalism, the disruption of religious services, and the 
interference with religious activities. If we are once again to muster the moral 
courage to confront the devastating consequences of racism in our urban 
communities, then we must take every step necessary to safeguard the proper 
leadership role of our faith communities in this endeavor. I am particularly pleased 
that the Commission has recently urged the Department of Justice "to enhance the 
enforcement and interpretation of existing federal law relating to religious intolerance." 
The second issue is the increasing interracial tension and particularly the increasing 
evidence of anti-Semitism, and I am pleased to report that the Commission has 
recently spoken out forcefully to condemn expressions of anti-Semitism. I am 
confident that the Commission will continue to keep these as important priorities. 

In closing, I would like to reiterate the importance of the Commission's work in 
monitoring Federal civil rights enforcement efforts as well as the completion of our 
"Racial and Ethnic Tensions" hearings and issuance of the statutory reports based 
upon them as detailed in the statement submitted on behalf of the Commission as a 
whole. Thank you for the opportunity to share these observations with you. 


Senator SiMON. You used the word that I think is really key, and 
that is the word "hope." We have too many people in our society 
that simply do not have hope, and I thought as I was reflecting on 
your testimony as the two of you were testifying, that it is a very 
different world from a world when some of us were young people 
in the civil rights struggle but the problem of poverty, and you 
mentioned this Dr. Berry, the problem of poverty is just so over- 
whelming for some people that I hope the Commission can speak 
out very forcefully on this. 

I am kind of testifying before you here now rather than asking 
questions. There is a reluctance on the part of those of us in policy- 
making positions to face the problem of poverty because there is no 
inexpensive way of solving this. And yet by not facing it, it is the 
most expensive answer of all, and that is both a waste of human 
resources and economic resources. And regarding economic dis- 
crimination, you know it is fine to say it to an iAJrican-American 
or Hispanic, "you can get a job anywhere," but if because of the res- 
idential pattern they are in the west side of Chicago or the south 
side of Chicago, and the jobs are in the suburbs, and they do not 
have the means of getting there, that is not discrimination tech- 
nically that you can take any action against anyone on, but it is 
a very real form of discrimination. And the only way people in that 
situation are going to get a chance to be lifted is to get jobs, get 
a decent education, do the things that frankly we are avoiding. 

We are more segregated on the basis of economics that at any 
point in our Nation's history. I know where Dr. Berry is from. 
Where are you from. Commissioner Anderson? 

Mr. Anderson. Originally from Seattle, but I live now in Arling- 

Senator Simon. OK; well, in Arlington where you live, everyone 
around you, unless you are in a very unusual neighborhood prob- 
ably has roughly the same income. The poor are in some distant 
place. That is the way America is today, with some exceptions, I 
happen to be from a small town in rural Illinois, Makanda, IL, pop- 
ulation 402. We are economically integrated. And it has the great 
advantage of allowing you to know the person who does not live 
very far from you who has problems. In a small town people can 
get help from one another. And people who do not know how to 
solve problems live next door to people who do know how to solve 
problems, and they can have that spark of hope. 

But we really need that, and I would hope — using your word 
again — I would hope the Commission will speak very forcefully on 
our need to face up to the problem of poverty in our society. 

Ms. Berry. Well, Mr. Chairman, in these hearings on racial ten- 
sions and the reports that we hope, we expect to come from them, 
we will address all of these. These problems are connected, the pov- 
erty, inequality and discrimination, which is why we titled it that 
way, and race. 

The communities that you talk about, this is why enterprise 
zones or what are now called empowerment zones, which have been 
enacted into law, are important, but they are, what the Commis- 
sion understood, and it has been done in the law, that provisions 
for certain mechanisms for putting investment in communities 


have to be designed in such a way that they benefit the people who 
live in the communities. 

When we first started talking about enterprise zones, there was 
nothing in the law, in the proposals, that would have made sure 
that you benefited the people who actually lived there. As the legis- 
lation was finally worked out by the Congress and passed, it does 
focus on the people there. So having economic opportunity in poor 
communities is important. Human capital, that is good education, 
and all these years after Brown against the Board in America's 
cities, in particular, we have separate and unequal education. It is 
separate and unequal. It is still segregated. 

We call it now racially isolated. That is a euphemism for seg- 
regated, but that is what it is. And it is unequal because if you look 
at what is being provided to children it is unequal, and there are 
various proposals to solve that problem. Some people think that 
they are private sector responses. Others think beefing up the pub- 
lic schools, and there are all kinds of proposals around the country, 
but the main thing with those I have always thought is that you 
must be sure that any proposal is designed to benefit the children 
who need it most. 

I mean to have a proposal which leaves behind all the children 
who need the education most, that will not do us any good. Also 
housing, of course, as long as it is segregated, and we are one of 
the most class and racially segregated Nations in the world in 
terms of housing. You cannot desegregate schools if you do not de- 
segregate housing, Catch-22, and we have now lost any will to do 
anything about that. 

But I think there is an even sadder problem that I see, Mr. 
Chairman, that I alluded to, which is why I said I liked emphasiz- 
ing civil rights enforcement. That is young people who have pulled 
themselves out of poverty, under dire circumstances, and gotten an 
education and gotten trained, and then find themselves discrimi- 
nated against when they go into the job market. I mean what kind 
of an example does that set for other people who you go out and 
you try to be a role model for people in the community? 

What kind of an example does it set when you do everything you 
can and you want to say to the people in the neighborhood, look, 
if you behave and if you do like I do, boy, things will open up for 
you. So we have got to do both, and we have got to see that there 
are connections between these things. 

Senator SiMON. I could not agree more. You mentioned hate 
crimes incidentally, and I do not know if this is something that the 
Commission can do anything about. I introduced the hate crimes 
legislation probably 4 years ago, 5 years ago, and it passed, and the 
FBI is keeping track of this, and the new director has committed 
to me that they are going to continue to do that because the origi- 
nal legislation only called for it for 3 years. 

Well, one of the good things about it is that the FBI went around 
and had meetings, conferences, for local police departments. They 
had over a thousand of these around the Nation, on why it is im- 
portant to keep track of hate crimes, and I am told that these con- 
ferences themselves were an eye opener to many police. Prejudice 
is not an unknown thing in any profession including the police. 


But we have a great disparity in reporting. The State of Mary- 
land, right next to us, does an excellent job. The State of Oregon, 
for example, has more police units reporting than in the State of 
California. And California clearly has, you know, a much greater 
population. I just mention this as one of the things that you may 
want to be looking at. 

Ms. Berry. Well, let me comment on that, Mr. Chairman. I testi- 
fied on the Hate Crimes Statistics act proposal on several occasions 
before it passed. And a couple of times I was with police officers 
when we were having this testimony, and the Commission has and 
its State advisory committees had studies done in local commu- 
nities and States on why they are not reporting and encouraging 
them to report, and many of the police officers said that they did 
not want, as you know, they thought that it was hard to define 
what was a hate crime, whether it was based on religion, or race 
or whatever it was, that, you know, they could tell it was a crime 
maybe, but they were not sure it was a hate crime. 

And they would rather be relieved from that, and they did not 
understand how important it was to punish it and define it as what 
it is in order to dissuade other people from engaging in these ac- 
tivities. So our State advisory committees, a number of them, are 
still doing reports in the State on police departments and encourag- 
ing police departments to report and trying to explain to them why 
this is necessary and they will continue to do it. 

Senator SiMON. If you could, and maybe even touch base with the 

Ms. Berry. OK. 

Senator Simon. And see which States are not doing the kind of 
jobs they ought to be doing, and maybe we could follow through 
there. That would be good. Commissioner Anderson, in your testi- 
mony, you did not mention what you favor, and maybe you did in 
your written testimony, but what you favor in terms of reauthoriza- 
tion. Do you favor a 1-year reauthorization? A 3 year, 6 year, 25 
year? Do you have any preference here? 

Mr. Anderson. Thank you. That is part of my testimony I did 
not highlight. I concur with the statement submitted by the chair- 
person, so I would support a 6 year authorization for the Commis- 
sion. In a sense, authorization term is somewhat arbitrary, but in 
the past, not the recent past, but the more distant past, it has been 
6 years, and I think that is a reasonable time period. 

I think most of the Commissioners do not mind the type of super- 
vision that a short authorization brings along with it, but it does 
have certain disruptive aspects to more longer term planning like 
the several year hearing series we have planned. So I think a little 
bit longer authorization and 6 years would be good. 

Senator Simon. Is this the unanimous opinion of the Commission 
or is the Commission, as they are in many things, divided on this? 

Ms. Berry. Well, as I recall, I think I either abstained or did not 
vote or something. My own view about — but everybody else did — 
my own view about reauthorization is much like Commissioner An- 
derson. It could be for any term. You do not want too short a term 
because before you can get anything done, you are back trying to 
get reauthorized, and it is hard for planning purposes. 


But on the other hand, it is nice to have a short enough term 
so that there is an urgency about oversight, in my opinion, which 
one should welcome, and so we do not want it too long. In my opin- 
ion, 25 years would be ridiculous. We also do not want to indicate 
by reauthorization term that we think that all civil rights problems 
will be solved by next year or something or 2 years, which is un- 
happily not the case. If it were the case, we would all be happy 
about that. 

So from that standpoint, I think that it is just keeping those con- 
siderations in mind; then the committee can make a judgment. 

Senator Simon. You have been recommended for $2.4 million in- 
crease, and an increase of 30 full-time equivalent staff positions, let 
me ask you this. The people who were there during the Reagan 
years, if I may be blunt here. I see my friend Senator Brown com- 
ing in 

Ms. Berry. Just in time. 

Senator SiMON. For picking on President Reagan. 

Senator Brown. This is when you have asked me to come in, is 
it not? 

Senator SiMON. Oh, all right. [Laughter.] 

He is always making these dramatic entrances. I do not think 
there is any question that when President Bush came in there was 
an improvement in terms of what the Commission was doing. Are 
the people who are on the staff, the 90 people who are there 
fulltime right now, are they believers in the mission of the Com- 

Ms. Berry. Well, let me try to answer the question slightly dif- 
ferently so that I do not put an ideological cast that I could put on 
it. There are probably people there who have diverse views about 
civil rights just as Commissioners have all sorts of views about it. 
In point of fact, a lot of people were RIF'd at the Commission, em- 
ployees that had worked there for a longtime when we had all the 
fights and the budget problems in the Reagan years. 

We now have at the Commission, in my view, what I call the 
tooth to tail ratio is out of whack. That is we have got super- 
visors — because of the way the Federal civil service operates appar- 
ently — when you bump people or something, you end up with sen- 
ior people, and even if the junior people are doing a better job or 
something. I mean I do not know how that works. But you end up 
with not enough people who are really what I call the workers, the 
worker bees, not that the other people are not working. That is not 
the point. 

Senator SiMON. Too many chiefs and not enough Indians. 

Ms. Berry. Yes. 

Senator Simon. If I may use it. 

Ms. Berry. And so what I persuaded the 0MB and the presi- 
dent's staff was that we needed to have some people to fill in the 
gap so we would have some workers so we could turn out some of 
these reports and do the monitoring. I mean there was a time when 
the Commission had staff members who on a daily basis monitored 
what agencies were doing and came back and gave them good in- 
formation that they could use to operate more efficiently, whether 
it was handling complaints or whatever it was. 


And so what I persuaded them was that we could do a better job 
on getting these reports out. We could be more timely in terms of 
doing hearings on issues where there need to be hearings to spot- 
light things, and we could do the old enforcement reports that we 
used to do on a regular basis if they would just fill in the staff and 
give us. And so that is why they approved the budget request, and 
I think it is very much needed. 

Senator SiMON. Commissioner Anderson, in looking over the per- 
sonnel situation, I noticed, and maybe this is not still the case, but 
the information I had was a little old, but that Commissioners all 
have one full-time person working for each Commissioner. This is 
not the usual kind of procedure at commissions. Is it necessary to 
have one full-time person working for each Commissioner? Could it 
be a part-time person? What is your feeling on that? 

Mr. Anderson. Thank you, yes, I have a view on that. And it is 
related to what the chairperson was talking about earlier. I think 
that this Commission, the members show a real intention to work 
together and to work strongly together and to find as many areas 
of agreement that we can find. There is a large philosophical 
breadth represented on the Commission, but I do not think, looking 
back say 10 years ago, that the Commission is quite as 
confrontational, various members of the Commission are as 
confrontational with each other as has been the past history. 

I think part of the reason for that is the fact that the Commis- 
sioners see their role on the Commission as a heightened one, and 
part of the reason they are able to contribute more is the fact that 
they have personal staff assistants that are able to make them 
more effective on the Commission, and I think that has a way of 
overcoming a certain kind of hostility, if I could be blunt about it, 
on the part of certain Commissioners because they do feel better 
prepared and have had the opportunity to think out some of the 
issues before the Commission meeting. And I think that results in 
a smoother commission meeting. 

So some Commissioners have used the opportunity to have full- 
time staff. Others have not. I have had full-time staff. I have had 
part-time staff myself. And I think it is an advantage to the Com- 
mission, which the Commissioners, of course, are part-time Com- 
missioners. So they themselves rely more heavily on their personal 
staffs. I think the Commissioners should have that discretion, and 
I think it helps for a better functioning commission. 

Senator SiMON. And you find the person working for you has 
plenty to do on a full-time basis? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, I do. I think that in my case I have a profes- 
sor at George Mason University who works at the law school, 
works full-time for me for in the summer and part-time during the 
school year, during the academic year, and I find that by and large 
he has enough to do. 

Senator Simon. One final comment, and you may wish to com- 
ment on this, and then I want to turn it over to Senator Brown. 
I assume that you consider this part of your role, but I would hope 
the Commission, would not simply work to stop discrimination but 
to do the other positive things, somehow. This is one of the reasons 
for the hate crimes act, so we can, in a more than anecdotal way. 


find out where we really are going. My feeling is that we are not 
doing that well as a country, and that we have to reach out more. 

Just as an example, we now have more Muslims than we have 
Presbjrterians in this country. We have more Buddhists than we 
have Episcopalians in the country. We are becoming a very diverse 
people, and we have to reach out. This umbrella has to work, this 
umbrella called the United States of America, and to the extent 
that you can, you should, play a constructive role in getting people 
together so that we understand one another. So that we are proud 
of whatever, if we are Asian-Americans or African-Americans or 
Hispanic-Americans or Jewish-Americans, or Scandinavian-Ameri- 
cans or whatever our background, but also understand that we 
have to respect the hopes and aspirations of everybody else. 

Ms. Berry. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Simon. You may want to make some observation. 

Ms. Berry. Yes, I do want to. I just want to say that I have been 
noticing as I travel in other countries and meet with people, usu- 
ally on other business, not commission business — I have not been 
traveling to other countries — let me make that clear — at my own 
expense traveling to other countries — how commissions in those 
countries operate. And I have noticed in particular that many of 
them see an educational mission, that is educating the public as 
one of their primary functions. And many of them have in their 
statute that that is a principal function that they are supposed to 
have along with the monitoring of enforcement and the like. 

And they do everything from ad campaigns to a systematic sort 
of educational campaign, bringing people together. There are all 
sorts of things that can be done. So I have thought for a longtime 
that we ought to focus more of our attention on education, and I 
would urge my colleagues to do so, and I would urge the committee 
to think in terms of how we might be advised to do that. 

Senator Simon. If I may give you an assignment, Dr. Berry, and 
right now until you are reauthorized you have to say any idea I 
come along with is an excellent idea. 

Ms. Berry. Excellent, excellent, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] 

Senator SiMON. Yes. 

Senator Brown. Even I say that about your ideas. [Laughter.] 

Senator Simon. Give me some statutory language that you would 
like to see. 

Ms. Berry. OK. 

Senator Simon. In order for the Commission to feel an obligation 
to do more in this area. 

Ms. Berry. OK. 

Senator Simon. As part of your mission. 

Ms. Berry. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Simon. All right. Commissioner Anderson, do you wish 
to comment on this? 

Mr. Anderson. I would, Mr. Chairman, because on the first days 
that I joined the Commission, I felt that that was one of our over- 
riding concerns that it must be an overriding principle that we ad- 
dress because the changing demographics that you alluded to that 
are going to change even more dramatically in the next 2 decades 
are something which we have to face, and I think the Commission 
because it has the opportunity to reflect and study these over a 


longer period of time is perfectly equipped to do that and should 
do that, and is part of the reason why I pushed to have this series 
of hearings in various urban areas, to give us a better sense of how 
those demographics are beginning to work out in our urban areas. 
And it is a tremendously lasting impression on me, visiting Los An- 
geles after the riots, to just see how very, very distinct in ways that 
in the past our cities that were segregated, if you will, along Euro- 
pean ethnic lines, how very distinct the situation is, say, in a city 
like Los Angeles where there are Asian-American communities, the 
Central American communities, and we have got to do a lot of work 
to bring them the promise of America, if I can put it that way, and 
I think that is a principal concern of the Commission. 

Senator Simon. Senator Brown. 

Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I think you know, 
Mary Berry was chancellor at the University of Colorado. 

Ms. Berry. I did not know you knew that, Senator. 

Senator Brown. Yes, I am a lot older than I look, Mary. [Laugh- 

But we are very proud of you. 

Ms. Berry. Thank you. 

Senator SiMON. In fact, your old job is open again. 

Ms. Berry. Again. [Laughter.] 

Senator Brown. And the pay has gone up quite a bit. 

Ms. Berry. Oh. 

Senator Brown. We would be delighted to have you back. 

Ms. Berry. I love Colorado. 

Senator Brown. Well, we loved having you there, and I know you 
visit every now and then. 

Ms. Berry. I do. 

Senator Brown. But I hope you never hesitate to come back. You 
have many good friends at the university. 

Ms. Berry. Thank you. 

Senator Brown. I want to ask you to comment on how we take 
the next step in the civil rights area. That is not to suggest that 
the battle over opening doors is over. It is not. The challenge is 
even more difficult now because the bigotry that still exist is more 

But I want to elicit from both of you any thoughts that you have 
with regard to the kinds of things we can do as a society and that 
you can do as the Civil Rights Commission to expand opportunity. 
I talk to so many people who would love to, for example, be in 
charge of their own life, be in charge of their own business, who 
are almost overwhelmed by regulatory barriers. They are not 
C.P.A.'s, they are not lawyers, they are not professional lobbyists 
who know how to work through the bureaucracy. They feel limited 
by government, in effect, with the hurdles we put up for small op- 
erations and small businesses. I hope this is something you have 
focused on, and that you have some thoughts or suggestions for us, 
because part of the effort to expand opportunity in the civil rights 
area must be to lift the burden of government regulation and tax- 

Ms. Berry. Well, I will comment after Commissioner Anderson 
because I know he has already thought about this. 


^^ 3 9999 05706 7017 

Mr. Anderson. Thank you. Yes, Senator. What you have just 
said, I think, was repeated to us through several days of hearings 
in our Los Angeles hearings from minority businessmen and 
women in South Central Los Angeles. And without prejudging 
where the Commission is going to come out on some specifics, spe- 
cifically responding to your question, I think that most assuredly 
our report coming from those hearings are going to address those 
questions directly. 

We have several members of the Commission who are very con- 
cerned about that, have been for a longtime, and I think you're 
going to see specific kinds of recommendations coming from us in 
the very near future about precisely this question. 

Ms. Berry. Well, let me answer it for myself. I have thought 
about this a great deal. I used to have debates with a professor 
over at George Mason whose name is Walter Williams, who is very 
much interested in removing licensing regulations, been something 
in Davis-Bacon, and we have had debates about all this stuff. 

And I have thought about it for a number of years. I think two 
things without even waiting until the Commission reports, which 
I should not do, but I will do. I think that first there is a difference 
between licensing and regulation that is beneficial and needed and 
licensing and regulation which is just burdensome and in the way. 
And I teach about this when I teach legal history about how licens- 
ing and regulation got started. 

Part of it is it creates monopolies. I mean that is part of what 
happens so that there are barriers to entry of people who would 
like to be entrepreneurs and the like. That kind of licensing and 
regulation ought to be abandoned. Licensing and regulation, for ex- 
ample, that says that no one can take out my appendix unless they 
are a surgeon, I sort of like that. But licensing and regulation that 
says somebody cannot have a push cart or do something to start 
a business and other things, I think that is just unnecessary red 
tape, and I know how it got started and I know what the uses of 

So that would be my first answer. The second answer I would 
give is I have long thought, when I used to run education programs 
in the Federal Government, that for people who do not go to college 
when they get out of high school, that we ought to have some kind 
of program to provide loans, grants, advice for people who want to 
start up, to start businesses or to do something, or they have ideas 
and they cannot get capital for it because their family does not 
have any money or something. They have got a good idea. That to 
me that was just as important as having student aid programs for 
people to go to school, which I think is very important, and which 
I support. 

Senator Brown. Yes. 

Ms. Berry. And I have also thought that the English system in 
England where they have had for a longtime this idea of giving 
grants to people who are on welfare, loans, so that they can start 
up businesses, that all of these are very useful ideas, and taken to- 
gether opportunity which is a provision of some capital people 
needed, and on the other hand, if there is licensing and regulation 
that ought to be removed and has a discriminatory effect in some 


cases because it particularly burdens certain categories of people, 
that that ought to be looked at, too. 

Senator Brown. You know I, everybody, I suspect, relates to 
their own experience. When I worked for a living, I worked for a 
meat packing operation. 

Senator Simon. Are you telling the people of Colorado you are 
not working for a living here now? 

Senator Brown. Well, the product that Congress produces is not 
only more ethereal but I suspect less nourishing as well. [Laugh- 

But the business of processing meat, we had so many regulations 
that all the small operators simply went out of business. It was not 
because they were not competitive or productive or efficient. There 
are scales of economy, and Congress has virtually regulated all 
small operations out of business. The regulations were so devastat- 
ing, and some of them were simply a bureaucratic mandate. 

I mention this not only because your Commission has great pres- 
tige, but because it also has a sensitivity to government barriers 
that could be removed. I think expanding opportunity in this way 
could receive bipartisan support. 

I would like to make one last comment with the hope that it 
would strike a chord with you and that you would reflect on what 
could be done in that area. I was fascinated, during a visit to 
Singapore, with their way of dealing with public housing. 

They have a program that is called a providence fund. It is like 
our social security. Both the employee and employer donate to it, 
and it is set aside. It is a little larger than ours in terms of dona- 
tions. But it allows people to tap that money for a couple of things 
that we do not. One is for emergency health care. They also allow 
citizens to utilize the fund for their down payment on their first 
purchase of a home. 

Ninety to ninety-five percent of their people own their own home, 
and what would be public housing projects in the United States are 
privately owned homes. There is an income threshold level. If you 
are wealthy, you cannot take your money out of the fund for that. 
But if you are of a moderate or low income, you can use your 
money that is in the fund for a down payment. The impact it has 
on getting someone their own home is just phenomenal. The prob- 
lems that we have in public housing projects simply do not exist 
in Singapore where people own the homes themselves. 

This is just one way of tapping capital. There are other ways to 
deal with this access to capital problem in both job opportunities 
and business opportunities as well as home ownership. I hope you 
will think about this because it goes right to the heart of the ques- 
tion of access and opportunity in society. If there is new language 
you need to respond to in this area, let us know. But I hope that 
you would reflect on the things we can do that would open up ac- 
cess to job opportunities, business opportunities, home ownership 
and in other areas, that are different than our current approach. 
I do not know what Senator Simon thinks, but my own impression 
is that what we have done in the way of public housing has not 
worked very well. We need to think of new ways to expand oppor- 

Ms. Berry. Yes. 


Senator Simon. I thank you. Let me just add, too, and we are 
just bombarding you, and then we are going to run off before you 
can say an3rthing. Two things, one as I saw in the British pubhca- 
tion "Economist," a reference to the last overt racism in the United 
States being our designation of athletic teams. This is not a huge 
issue, but symbols are important. We still, I would like to see the 
Commission say something about having a team called the Wash- 
ington Redskins equating it with the Los Angeles Rams and the 
Chicago Bears. I bear a few scars for having 

Ms. Berry. I know that. Senator. 

Senator Simon. I stood up against Chief Illiniwek at the Univer- 
sity of Illinois. 

Ms. Berry. Yes. 

Senator Brown. Mr. Chairman, you are raising religious issues 
now. [Laughter.] 

Senator SiMON. But I think we demean Native Americans 
through our use of these designations, and I would hope maybe 
your Commission could say something about that. Second, because 
one of you, and I forget which one of you, mentioned teenage preg- 
nancies, two points here. Some years ago, I tracked teenage preg- 
nancies in counties in Illinois, and I found that in Alexander and 
Pulaski counties, with a heavy black population but heavy unem- 
ployment, you got a high teenage pregnancy rate. 

I found in Pope and Hardin and I forget, a couple of other coun- 
ties that are almost totally white, but with high unemployment, a 
high teenage pregnancy rate. That unemployment and that teenage 
pregnancy rate go hand in hand. I mention this because I saw a 
startling statistic the other day. If you are a woman and have your 
first child after the age of 20, 9 percent of those children in the Na- 
tion live in poverty, 78 percent of those children bom of a teenage 
mother live in poverty. That really says that something is happen- 
ing in our culture, and I think when you tie that in with those un- 
employment statistics, it really means if we are going to really give 
opportunity to people, we're going to have to tackle the problems 
of poverty and unemployment. I hate to say on that note, we are 
going to have to run over to vote now. We thank you both very, 
very much for being here. Our hearing stands adjourned. 

Ms. Berry. Thank you for having us. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.] 


ISBN 0-16-052331-1 

9 780